Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

I'm not sure it is entirely fair to characterize him as having a generally deceptive nature based on a couple things. Generally, he seems at least direct and honest.

Uhhh... no, he doesn't.

In Assange you have an individual who promised he would avoid commenting about the political affairs of other countries while at the embassy... then broke that promise by posting about Catalyn independence. That shows that either he was lying, or that his 'promises' don't really mean anything.

You have an individual who, as a "houseguest" of the Ecuadorian embassy, was accessing things that he did not have the right to access. (It got to the point where embassy staff had to keep their personal information in a locked safe because they couldn't trust Assange.)

You have an individual who (in theory) wants to open up the world and get rid of secrets, yet supposedly runs WikiLeaks in an extremely non-transparent manner. (For example, he expects people to sign draconian non-disclosure agreements.) Looks a bit hypocritical to me.

You have an individual who, when some in-redacted WikiLeaks data was given to a Putin ally (which was used to target dissidents), failed to investigate. Plus the organization published information giving the names of Afghan citizens and sexual assault victims in Saudi Arabia, which put their lives in risk. This shows a general lack of empathy to those harmed by the actions of WikiLeaks.

And, just to remind you, the main reason he is in the embassy is because Assange didn't respect the wishes of some of the women he was having sex with.

All this does not paint a portrait of someone who is "direct and honest". Instead, it paints a portrait of a egotistical narcissist who believes that the rules of society do not apply to him. Now, perhaps a case could be made for the need for organizations like WikiLeaks. But that doesn't mean that Assange should be seen as a decent individual.

In Assange you have an individual who promised he would avoid commenting about the political affairs of other countries while at the embassy... then broke that promise by posting about Catalyn independence. That shows that either he was lying, or that his 'promises' don't really mean anything.

You have an individual who, as a "houseguest" of the Ecuadorian embassy, was accessing things that he did not have the right to access. (It got to the point where embassy staff had to keep their personal information in a locked safe because they couldn't trust Assange.)

You have an individual who (in theory) wants to open up the world and get rid of secrets, yet supposedly runs WikiLeaks in an extremely non-transparent manner. (For example, he expects people to sign draconian non-disclosure agreements.) Looks a bit hypocritical to me.

You have an individual who, when some in-redacted WikiLeaks data was given to a Putin ally (which was used to target dissidents), failed to investigate. Plus the organization published information giving the names of Afghan citizens and sexual assault victims in Saudi Arabia, which put their lives in risk. This shows a general lack of empathy to those harmed by the actions of WikiLeaks.

Well, you might need to link to that as I recall at least a couple of them expressing surprise that he'd done a runner.

You're right, the article I read said that the backers were advised that the surety was in jeapordy when they guaranteed it, but that is boilerplate language. Some backers presented themselves to the court, ready to pay, and others contested and requested reductions.

Yeah, I'll concede that Assange is cowardly, playing games to avoid facing the Swedish charges (though I do think they are trumped up to some degree). He should face Swedish courts and state his defense, in the interests of all involved, including the rights of the women. If the US pulled a fast one while in Sweden, that's a battle he should face on its own time.

From your first example to the last, you are spinning the facts again, but I suppose we could do this endlessly.

I stated the facts.

Do you have any proof that what I posted is wrong? That WikiLeaks (the organization that wants to end secrecy) requires draconian non-disclosure agreements? Do you have any proof that WikiLeaks didn't post personal details of homosexuals in Saudi Arabia? That Assange didn't break an agreement he made to stop interfering with other countries?

And assuming everything I wrote is correct, do you think those activities can be considered the actions of someone who is "direct and honest"?

Or are we going to be subjected to some mighty hand-wave to dismiss any and all evidence that perhaps Assange isn't really "direct and honest"?

Quote:

Re: The need for WikiLeaks

This is my only real reason in supporting Assange.

Except of course you made the statement that Assange was "direct and honest". Which, as I have pointed out, is definitely not the case.

Had you said earlier "Assange is probably a liar and scumbag but he provides a net benefit" then you might have a leg to stand on. But YOU made the claim that he was likely "direct and honest".

We also have, you know, the media (Newspapers, Television, etc.). You know, the people that have released things like the Panama papers (initially from a German Newspaper). And it should be pointed out that Snowden released his information through outlets like the Guardian. So if WikiLeaks did not exist, much/most of the information would probably end up being made public anyways through other channels.

Of course, the problem is, the mainstream media is less likely to release information that will get innocent people killed (you know, like WikiLeaks does). But you have no moral problem with innocent people getting killed, right? After all, it doesn't seem to bother "direct and honest" Assange.

Quote:

The declared mission of WikiLeaks...

That's the issue now, isn't it...

The 'declared' mission is to get rid of secrets. The ACTUAL mission seems to be "try to harm the U.S. and cozy up to Russia". Unfortunately you seem to hand-wave that away.

Quote:

...is too potentially valuable to be disabled by this sideshow.

Keep in mind that the "sideshow" is basically because WikiLeaks has turned into the Julian Assange show. And when you build an organization around an individual with such a shaky moral foundation and such a YUGE amount of ego, you're going to run into problems.

Also, Keep in mind that I'm not the only one stating that there are problems with the way WikiLeaks is being run. A lot of former insiders are saying the same thing. Daniel Domscheit-Berg had been involved with WikiLeaks for several years but left because, well, Assange was making everything about him and the U.S. "This one-dimensional confrontation with the USA is not what we set out to do". And supposedly over a dozen people have left WikiLeaks for various reasons, including a lack of Transparency, and an infatuation with the U.S. to the point where other stories are getting ignored. (And remember, that's from INSIDERS within WikiLeaks, not from me just stating my own personal opinion.)

I didn't say you were wrong. I said you were spinning the facts. Asking (in bold) for proof that you were wrong is a great example of spin. But whatever. One by one:

Quote:

That WikiLeaks (the organization that wants to end secrecy) requires draconian non-disclosure agreements?

The link you supplied to support this does not have this 'draconian' agreement attached (goes 404). Thanks, that was helpful. Based on the $20mil penalty, I assume the actual agreement was the well-publicized 12mil pounds sterling penalty-carrying non-disclosure agreement (the exchange rate for the time seems about right) that Wikileaks staff had to sign. Why? So a staffer wouldn't grab a juicy leak and run with it themselves. You find that unreasonable, given the potentially world-altering information they are dealing with? I think it is a reasonable condition to require. Strike one.

Quote:

Do you have any proof that WikiLeaks didn't post personal details of homosexuals in Saudi Arabia?

Homosexuals, plural? No, they failed to redact the personal info of one man who had been arrested in Saudi Arabia for being gay. And two rape victims, and a bunch of other less dramatic un-redacteds. That is sloppy redacting on the part of WL staff, even out of hundreds of thousands of docs. That does not indicate anything but the occasional mistake that can happen, unfortunately. Strike two.

Quote:

That Assange didn't break an agreement he made to stop interfering with other countries?

The Ecuadorian Embassy and Assange agreed that he would not issue comments that would interfere with other states. The horrifically dishonest tweet you refer to is in full as follows, from your own link:

"What is occurring in Catalonia is the redefinition of the relationship between people and state. The most disciplined Ghandian project since Ghandi. It's results will spread everywhere."

That is 'interfering with other countries' (your words, above)? Strike three.

Quote:

And assuming everything I wrote is correct, do you think those activities can be considered the actions of someone who is "direct and honest"?

Or are we going to be subjected to some mighty hand-wave to dismiss any and all evidence that perhaps Assange isn't really "direct and honest"?

Except of course you made the statement that Assange was "direct and honest". Which, as I have pointed out, is definitely not the case.

Had you said earlier "Assange is probably a liar and scumbag but he provides a net benefit" then you might have a leg to stand on. But YOU made the claim that he was likely "direct and honest".

As you may note, you have not demonstrated indirectness or dishonesty. Not even in the Catalonia tweet. Also, I said he was generally at least direct and honest. That does not mean he is not narcissistic, or wrong, or paranoid, or anything else. His work with Wikileaks I do find to be generally direct and honest, if currently misguided. WL has a stellar track record for not having to issue retractions for giving out false information, for example. Better than any other major publisher.

Yes. I know. Heard anything substantial from any of these alternatives? Didn't think so. An alternative needs to actually, you know, deliver something. I actually had high hopes for OpenLeaks. Danny D-S has done squat.

Quote:

We also have, you know, the media (Newspapers, Television, etc.). You know, the people that have released things like the Panama papers (initially from a German Newspaper). And it should be pointed out that Snowden released his information through outlets like the Guardian. So if WikiLeaks did not exist, much/most of the information would probably end up being made public anyways through other channels.

Yes. Obviously. But a WL platform is (in theory) unique in not being owned by a corporation who might exercise a little editorial control, or have a bias. Yes, Assange has created a bias within. I am also concerned about an additional, and uncontrollable, bias from without, such as a parent company with a vested interest in leaked material.

Quote:

Of course, the problem is, the mainstream media is less likely to release information that will get innocent people killed (you know, like WikiLeaks does). But you have no moral problem with innocent people getting killed, right? After all, it doesn't seem to bother "direct and honest" Assange.

Not only a dead lie, but an unnecessarily personal one.

Quote:

That's the issue now, isn't it...

The 'declared' mission is to get rid of secrets. The ACTUAL mission seems to be "try to harm the U.S. and cozy up to Russia". Unfortunately you seem to hand-wave that away.

Ignore your personal opinion? Yeah, after the last one you just ventured I am quite comfortable with that.

Quote:

Keep in mind that the "sideshow" is basically because WikiLeaks has turned into the Julian Assange show. And when you build an organization around an individual with such a shaky moral foundation and such a YUGE amount of ego, you're going to run into problems.

Also, Keep in mind that I'm not the only one stating that there are problems with the way WikiLeaks is being run. A lot of former insiders are saying the same thing. Daniel Domscheit-Berg had been involved with WikiLeaks for several years but left because, well, Assange was making everything about him and the U.S. "This one-dimensional confrontation with the USA is not what we set out to do". And supposedly over a dozen people have left WikiLeaks for various reasons, including a lack of Transparency, and an infatuation with the U.S. to the point where other stories are getting ignored. (And remember, that's from INSIDERS within WikiLeaks, not from me just stating my own personal opinion.)

Yes. I know. As I said earlier, I had high hopes for D D-S and OpenLeaks. But they, and the other wondrous alternatives, are doing nothing. Much like my country, the USA, has a ton of problems, large and small, and I still want to see it succeed because of the promise it holds. Kind of a Trump/Assange US/WL analogy. You could argue that another country would do what the US does. But they are not, currently. For better or worse, they are both what is on the table, and I want badly to see them sort out their issues and get to work.

The way I see it, he's made claims about his thoughts and feelings. As you put it, "communications he has put out to establish his state of mind".

You've accepted these claims and internalized them as a construct that you believe truthfully describes his thoughts and feelings. Then you use this construct as evidence to explain his actions.

I think a more rational approach is to take the claims as claims, and take the observed actions as evidence that does or does not support the claims.

You say his flight to the UK makes sense if we assume his claims about his state of mind are true.

I say his flight to the UK gives us insight into what his true state of mind really is.

tl,dr; Actions speak louder than words.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I am doing. His claims are, I think, supported by evidence.

Take for example his 'flight' from Sweden. He had his lawyer inquire in writing if Assange was free to leave the country, per his plans. Sweden affirmed, in writing, that he was free to go. Assange first tried to arrange the secondary interview with Ny (the prosecutor) before he departed (she said at this time that he was 'not a wanted man'). Ny didn't feel well, then there was a Sunday, and after Sweden got around to scheduling the questioning, Assange's lawyer couldn't get a hold of him (he led a kind of nomadic life at the time) and the EAW was issued almost immediately.

I think the claim that he did not 'flee' Sweden is supported by the evidence. I am again linking the Agreed Facts from the UK Supreme Court as the source of these facts. I trust you find that credible?

You, on the other hand, decide he fled in advance and interpret the narrative from there. Why?

In Assange you have an individual who promised he would avoid commenting about the political affairs of other countries while at the embassy... then broke that promise by posting about Catalyn independence. That shows that either he was lying, or that his 'promises' don't really mean anything.

You have an individual who, as a "houseguest" of the Ecuadorian embassy, was accessing things that he did not have the right to access. (It got to the point where embassy staff had to keep their personal information in a locked safe because they couldn't trust Assange.)

You have an individual who (in theory) wants to open up the world and get rid of secrets, yet supposedly runs WikiLeaks in an extremely non-transparent manner. (For example, he expects people to sign draconian non-disclosure agreements.) Looks a bit hypocritical to me.

You have an individual who, when some in-redacted WikiLeaks data was given to a Putin ally (which was used to target dissidents), failed to investigate. Plus the organization published information giving the names of Afghan citizens and sexual assault victims in Saudi Arabia, which put their lives in risk. This shows a general lack of empathy to those harmed by the actions of WikiLeaks.

And, just to remind you, the main reason he is in the embassy is because Assange didn't respect the wishes of some of the women he was having sex with.

All this does not paint a portrait of someone who is "direct and honest". Instead, it paints a portrait of a egotistical narcissist who believes that the rules of society do not apply to him. Now, perhaps a case could be made for the need for organizations like WikiLeaks. But that doesn't mean that Assange should be seen as a decent individual.

Who looks to The Guardian newspaper for reliable, unbiased information about Wikileaks and Julian Assange?

Pamela Anderson (friend to Assange) supposedly doesn't quite understand comedy and satire, and actually asked Alec Baldwin (who has played Trump in several Saturday Night Live skits) if he's on good enough terms with Trump to get Assange pardoned. (She has also complained about people being 'anti-Russia'... Hmmm... wonder why that might be?

From: https://www.thewrap.com/pamela-ander...ulian-assange/“I saw Alec Baldwin the other day at ‘Match Game’ and asked him, ‘How do you get along with Trump?’ and he’s like, ‘Ah, not great,'” Anderson said in an interview with The Daily Beast. “I said, ‘Well, if you get Julian a pardon maybe he could host ‘Saturday Night Live!’–because Julian is really funny and not a lot of people know that.”

On a more serious note:

Looks like there are some negotiations between Ecuador and the U.K. to have Assange evicted from the embassy.

And finally, looks like WikiLeaks may have been tied into the Mueller investigations:

From: https://globalnews.ca/news/4332154/r...cking-denials/Charges against 12 Russian military intelligence officers for U.S. election hacking undermine denials by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange that the Russian government was the source of stolen Democratic emails published by the anti-secrecy organization.... if the charges in the indictment are proved true, it would show that WikiLeaks – referred to as “Organization 1” in the indictment – received the material from a persona directly controlled by Russia’s Main Intelligence Directorate, and even gave the Russian hackers advice on how to disseminate it.

So, WikiLeaks/Assange are not under indictment (although I do have to wonder if Mueller might end up charging them after all is said and done.)

Based on the $20mil penalty, I assume the actual agreement was the well-publicized 12mil pounds sterling penalty-carrying non-disclosure agreement (the exchange rate for the time seems about right) that Wikileaks staff had to sign. Why? So a staffer wouldn't grab a juicy leak and run with it themselves. You find that unreasonable, given the potentially world-altering information they are dealing with?

Then what's the point of WikiLeaks? If the point is to "get rid of secrets" then why should it matter if WikiLeaks or some other organization releases the information?

Quote:

Quote:

Do you have any proof that WikiLeaks didn't post personal details of homosexuals in Saudi Arabia?

Homosexuals, plural? No, they failed to redact the personal info of one man who had been arrested in Saudi Arabia for being gay. And two rape victims, and a bunch of other less dramatic un-redacteds.

I find your rather cavalier attitude amazing. WikiLeaks invades the privacy (and perhaps even causes the deaths!) of people through their carelessness and you shrug it off as "Errrr... no big deal". Nice. Really friggin' nice.

(Oh, and by the way, those weren't the only people who have been affected... I just picked some of the more publicized ones. There are others. (Like data given to pro-trump politicians in Eastern Europe so that they can be targeted.) But I assume you will similarly wave those away too with a mighty wave of your hand.

From: http://theweek.com/speedreads/644474...ren-gay-saudis...WikiLeaks has published medical and detailed sensitive information on hundreds of rape survivors, ill children, gay Saudi men, and other private citizens... Some information, like the disclosure of dozens of Social Security and credit card numbers in the Democratic National Committee leaks, mostly put people at risk of identity theft and other crimes, as do the more than 500 passport, academic, employment, and identity files in a cache of Saudi documents.

Or how about: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikilea...an-informants/Hundreds of Afghan civilians who worked as informants for the U.S. military have been put at risk by WikiLeaks' publication of more than 90,000 classified intelligence reports...in spite of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's claim that sensitive information had been removed from the leaked documents, that reporters scanning the reports for just a couple hours found hundreds of Afghan names mentioned as aiding the U.S.-led war effort. One specific example cited by the paper is a report on an interview conducted by military officers of a potential Taliban defector. The militant is named, along with his father and the village in which they live.

But hey, no big deal, eh? I bet those people DESERVED to have their private information revealed!

Quote:

That is sloppy redacting on the part of WL staff, even out of hundreds of thousands of docs. That does not indicate anything but the occasional mistake that can happen, unfortunately.

Strangely enough, when actual news organizations release data they tend not to, you know, release damaging information. At one point WikiLeaks was actually working with news organizations to properly redact files, but Assange didn't like the interference. So goodbye privacy, hello identity theft!

Quote:

Quote:

That Assange didn't break an agreement he made to stop interfering with other countries?

The Ecuadorian Embassy and Assange agreed that he would not issue comments that would interfere with other states. The horrifically dishonest tweet you refer to is in full as follows, from your own link:

"What is occurring in Catalonia is the redefinition of the relationship between people and state. The most disciplined Ghandian project since Ghandi. It's results will spread everywhere."

That is 'interfering with other countries' (your words, above)?

No in other words, he's not interfering with other states... he's just... interfering with other states.

Oh, and by the way, that's not the only thing he has done to interfere with Spain/Catalina. He's referred to Spain as a "banana monarchy", labelled the government as an "occupying power". The one tweet you mentioned is just one in a long list of things he has done to cause dissent in the area.

Quote:

As you may note, you have not demonstrated indirectness or dishonesty. Not even in the Catalonia tweet.

Actually I have. You just hand-waved it away with a mighty wave of your hands. You might consider that a valid response. I do not.

Quote:

His work with Wikileaks I do find to be generally direct and honest, if currently misguided. WL has a stellar track record for not having to issue retractions for giving out false information, for example.

So direct and honest that they invade the privacy of hundreds of homosexuals, rape survivors, political dissidents, and innocent civilians.

Oh by the way, that's a bit of a red herring. I never criticized WikiLeaks for publishing false information. I criticized them for 1) pro-Russian/anti-US bias, 2) not doing enough to protect innocent people. 3) Assange himself being an asshat.

Quote:

Re: other leak sites...

Yes. I know. Heard anything substantial from any of these alternatives?

Other sites do exist and do leak data.

True, they don't get anywhere near the traffic or attention WikiLeaks does, but then WikiLeaks does tend to suck all the oxygen out of the room. If WikiLeaks were to vanish, an alternative would take its place, much like Facebook supplanted Myspace.

Quote:

Re: Mainstream media...

Yes. Obviously. But a WL platform is (in theory) unique in not being owned by a corporation who might exercise a little editorial control...

The media is a competitive business... if one company doesn't publish something significant, another company will.

Quote:

...or have a bias.

Assange has a bias. Yet you seem to be very very happy with him.

Quote:

Quote:

Of course, the problem is, the mainstream media is less likely to release information that will get innocent people killed (you know, like WikiLeaks does). But you have no moral problem with innocent people getting killed, right? After all, it doesn't seem to bother "direct and honest" Assange.

Not only a dead lie, but an unnecessarily personal one.

Yet I posted about people who would have been put at risk of physical harm by WikiLeaks revelations (Homosexuals in Muslim countries, pro-American sources in Afghanistan, dissidents in putin-influenced countries) yet you waved away the risk with a mighty wave of your hand. Why is that?

Quote:

Quote:

That's the issue now, isn't it...

The 'declared' mission is to get rid of secrets. The ACTUAL mission seems to be "try to harm the U.S. and cozy up to Russia". Unfortunately you seem to hand-wave that away.

Ignore your personal opinion? Yeah, after the last one you just ventured I am quite comfortable with that.

You know who you remind me of? The pro-Trump supporters. You know the type that claim "No evidence of collusion" like a brain damaged parrot. "What about the financial ties between Trump and Russia? What about the secret meetings and the lies to cover up the meetings? What about the email from Trump Jr. about his eagerness to get Russian help?" Squack: No evidence of collusion.

Except with you, its: "No evidence of pro-Russian bias from Assange/WikiLeaks". "What about the financial support Russia gave Assange? What about Assange not publishing material critical of Russia? What about people who actually worked WITH Assange who have complained that he is focused primarily on harming the U.S.?" You: "Sqwuack!! No evidence of bias".

At this point I rather suspect that if we saw a live video feed of Assange urinating on an amercian flag while looking lovingly at a picture of Putin while muttering "Americans must die" under his breath, you'd still say that that was no evidence of Assange having an anti-American bias. (Heck, you'd probably even try to make up some conspiracy theory about how its the American's fault that he has such a weak bladder.)

I said the 'draconian agreement' attachment within the article goes 404, not the article itself.

Quote:

Then what's the point of WikiLeaks? If the point is to "get rid of secrets" then why should it matter if WikiLeaks or some other organization releases the information?

Really? WL wants to remain in operation, so as a publisher of leaked documents, they don't want their internal operations publicized. If they were publicized, they could be compromised and crippled. It doesn't make sense to you that a strict NDA would be required?

Quote:

I find your rather cavalier attitude amazing. WikiLeaks invades the privacy (and perhaps even causes the deaths!) of people through their carelessness and you shrug it off as "Errrr... no big deal". Nice. Really friggin' nice.

(Oh, and by the way, those weren't the only people who have been affected... I just picked some of the more publicized ones. There are others. (Like data given to pro-trump politicians in Eastern Europe so that they can be targeted.) But I assume you will similarly wave those away too with a mighty wave of your hand.

From: http://theweek.com/speedreads/644474...ren-gay-saudis...WikiLeaks has published medical and detailed sensitive information on hundreds of rape survivors, ill children, gay Saudi men, and other private citizens... Some information, like the disclosure of dozens of Social Security and credit card numbers in the Democratic National Committee leaks, mostly put people at risk of identity theft and other crimes, as do the more than 500 passport, academic, employment, and identity files in a cache of Saudi documents.

Or how about: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikilea...an-informants/Hundreds of Afghan civilians who worked as informants for the U.S. military have been put at risk by WikiLeaks' publication of more than 90,000 classified intelligence reports...in spite of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's claim that sensitive information had been removed from the leaked documents, that reporters scanning the reports for just a couple hours found hundreds of Afghan names mentioned as aiding the U.S.-led war effort. One specific example cited by the paper is a report on an interview conducted by military officers of a potential Taliban defector. The militant is named, along with his father and the village in which they live.

But hey, no big deal, eh? I bet those people DESERVED to have their private information revealed!

Strangely enough, when actual news organizations release data they tend not to, you know, release damaging information. At one point WikiLeaks was actually working with news organizations to properly redact files, but Assange didn't like the interference. So goodbye privacy, hello identity theft!

You were challenging a passing comment I made that Assange seems generally direct and honest. Your above arguments incorporate argumentative and logical fallacies. Can you name them? I bet you can.

Quote:

No in other words, he's not interfering with other states... he's just... interfering with other states.

Oh, and by the way, that's not the only thing he has done to interfere with Spain/Catalina. He's referred to Spain as a "banana monarchy", labelled the government as an "occupying power". The one tweet you mentioned is just one in a long list of things he has done to cause dissent in the area.

If you think Assange's personal opinions in his flipping tweets alters the course of nations, you think he has more power than I do.

Quote:

Actually I have. You just hand-waved it away with a mighty wave of your hands. You might consider that a valid response. I do not.

So direct and honest that they invade the privacy of hundreds of homosexuals, rape survivors, political dissidents, and innocent civilians.

Oh by the way, that's a bit of a red herring. I never criticized WikiLeaks for publishing false information. I criticized them for 1) pro-Russian/anti-US bias, 2) not doing enough to protect innocent people. 3) Assange himself being an asshat.

You directly and repeatedly challenged my passing comment that I thought that Assange, as a person, was generally direct and honest, as opposed to evasive and deceptive. By that, I mean that he believes in the righteousness of what he is doing and is forthcoming about it. You trying to move the goalposts and turn it into JA actually redacting the information himself and willingly leaving personal information there is disingenuous.

Quote:

Other sites do exist and do leak data.

True, they don't get anywhere near the traffic or attention WikiLeaks does, but then WikiLeaks does tend to suck all the oxygen out of the room. If WikiLeaks were to vanish, an alternative would take its place, much like Facebook supplanted Myspace.

Probably. Right now, there is only one significant publisher, Wikileaks. As I sais earlier, I had high hopes for Openleaks' model, but even Daniel D-S can't make it happen (and if anyone could, I thought it would be him).

Quote:

The media is a competitive business... if one company doesn't publish something significant, another company will.

Assange has a bias. Yet you seem to be very very happy with him.

Yet I posted about people who would have been put at risk of physical harm by WikiLeaks revelations (Homosexuals in Muslim countries, pro-American sources in Afghanistan, dissidents in putin-influenced countries) yet you waved away the risk with a mighty wave of your hand. Why is that?

You know who you remind me of? The pro-Trump supporters. You know the type that claim "No evidence of collusion" like a brain damaged parrot. "What about the financial ties between Trump and Russia? What about the secret meetings and the lies to cover up the meetings? What about the email from Trump Jr. about his eagerness to get Russian help?" Squack: No evidence of collusion.

Except with you, its: "No evidence of pro-Russian bias from Assange/WikiLeaks". "What about the financial support Russia gave Assange? What about Assange not publishing material critical of Russia? What about people who actually worked WITH Assange who have complained that he is focused primarily on harming the U.S.?" You: "Sqwuack!! No evidence of bias".

At this point I rather suspect that if we saw a live video feed of Assange urinating on an amercian flag while looking lovingly at a picture of Putin while muttering "Americans must die" under his breath, you'd still say that that was no evidence of Assange having an anti-American bias. (Heck, you'd probably even try to make up some conspiracy theory about how its the American's fault that he has such a weak bladder.)

Posting random insults seems to be kind of your thing, I take it?

As I have commented, I think WL (or something like it) is vitally necessary. I would be perfectly happy with Openleaks or any other model that works. Right now, Wikileaks is the only significant game in town, and I want to see them survive and expand. No, I am not interested in the Julian Assange Show. I have only argued here that other posters seem to let their dislike of him color their view of the overall situation. As I have said, I don't like him either. But from Manning to Sessions to Mueller and everywhere in between, the US has been openly gunning for Wikileaks, so Assange appears to have been more or less right all along. My argument is not pro-JA. It's option three: he's an insufferable douche canoe, but he is down-low wanted by the US. And that's how it appears to be playing out. I don't think he is exactly anti-US; I think he is anti-certain powerful factions within the US. He certainly does not like the Clintons in particular, and the military in general. And I agree that the timed release of emails during the election was intended to interfere with voters, which pissed me off royally, then and now. But since you want to drag this down to personal (and untrue) insults, I'll ask again: can we agree to disagree?

America: Enh. Not so much. You haven't really committed any crimes we care about.

Assange: Now I have!

America: And now we want to put you in jail.

Assange: I was right all along!

Funny, but tbf the last couple administrations have rather vehemently tried to get him. They just weren't able to. The publishing angle is problematic, and they haven't been able to pin anything further. Mueller may have something hard now, but the States have not exactly been indifferent to Assange.

You were challenging a passing comment I made that Assange seems generally direct and honest.

We are talking about a man who made a promise in the British courts not to run away in exchange for not being locked up while the case relating to his deportation to Sweden was being heard; a man who persuaded several of his friends and supporters to act as guarantors. Nevertheless, he broke his promise and, as a result, those friends and supporters have lost substantial sums of money. He shafted the judicial system and he shafted his friends.

I figure this can only end one way.
Assange: America wants to put me jail.
America: Enh. Not so much. You haven't really committed any crimes we care about.
Assange: Now I have!
America: And now we want to put you in jail.
Assange: I was right all along!

A month ago, I thought that the idea that assange was at significant risk of getting extradited/arrested by the U.S. was foolish. First of all, there is significant protection for freedom of the press in the U.S., and publishing classified information isn't necessarily illegal.

Plus, with Trump in power, he doesn't WANT Assange arrested. For all of the empty rhetoric coming from people like Sessions, the Republicans know that Wikileaks is actually beneficial to their cause. So, they can continue to spout off about how "wikileaks is evil", but they realize that they're better off with it around.

The Mueller investigation has certainly changes things... An unbiased investigation that is willing to actually go after those who have committed crimes. Plus, the rumors (although I should stress that they are as of yet unsubstantiated) that Assange did more than just publish documents, but was actively advising and coordinating with Russians (and by association the Trump campaign). Admittedly I was not expecting that, and now I have to say there is a risk of Assange actually being picked up by the Americans (or at least an arrest warrant issued... its quite likely that even if one is issued, Trump and the republicans will do their best not to act on it.)

Originally Posted by Thermal

Funny, but tbf the last couple administrations have rather vehemently tried to get him. They just weren't able to.

Please provide a list of actual concrete steps (such as arrest warrants/extradition requests/etc.) taken by the Obama or Bush administrations. And no, empty statements by politicians do not count.

We are talking about a man who made a promise in the British courts not to run away in exchange for not being locked up while the case relating to his deportation to Sweden was being heard; a man who persuaded several of his friends and supporters to act as guarantors. Nevertheless, he broke his promise and, as a result, those friends and supporters have lost substantial sums of money. He shafted the judicial system and he shafted his friends.

Those were not the actions of a direct and honest man.

Seeking political asylum was a last ditch effort, not calculated deception, IMO. His well-heeled supporters, you may note, have continued to stand beside him. Consider, please: if you actually believed that powers were 'out to get you', and you had supporters who wanted you to remain free, was it really dishonest to seek asylum? Circumstances change. AFAIK, his financial supporters continue to support him, and his promise to appear...well, come on. He thinks they are part of a conspiracy to get him. Note that I do not agree, but I think he is sincere in his belief that they are.

Just to keep it simple, a link from Wikipedia for your consideration, under the heading 'United States criminal investigation'. Anxious to hear why you deny the material provided. Conspiracy? Russkies? What?

Some hilites:

Quote:

After WikiLeaks released the Manning material, United States authorities began investigating WikiLeaks and Assange personally with a view to prosecuting them under the Espionage Act of 1917.

In November 2010 US Attorney-General Eric Holder said there was "an active, ongoing criminal investigation" into WikiLeaks.

It emerged from legal documents leaked over the ensuing months that Assange and others were being investigated by a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia.[135][136] An email from an employee of intelligence consultancy Strategic Forecasting, Inc. (Stratfor) leaked in 2012 said, "We have a sealed indictment on Assange."

In December 2011 prosecutors in the Chelsea Manning case revealed the existence of chat logs between Manning and an alleged WikiLeaks interlocutor they claimed to be Assange.

Assange was being examined separately by "several government agencies" in addition to the grand jury, most notably the FBI.[147] Court documents published in May 2014 suggest that Assange was still under "active and ongoing" investigation at that time.

Moreover, some Snowden documents published in 2014 show that the United States government put Assange on the "2010 Manhunting Timeline",[149] and in the same period they urged their allies to open criminal investigations into the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks.[150] In the same documents there was a proposal by the National Security Agency (NSA) to designate WikiLeaks as a "malicious foreign actor", thus increasing the surveillance against it.

In a 15 December 2015 court submission, the United States confirmed its "sensitive, ongoing law enforcement proceeding into the Wikileaks matter."

On 20 April 2017, U.S. officials told CNN that they were preparing to file formal charges against Assange.

This is WP's Cliff Notes version.. As you know, there is more. My claim is that there has been an ongoing investigation, as opposed to theprestige's claim that there is no US interest in him. Do you dispute that or are you going to move the goalposts?

A month later and you kick out '...and another thing'? I thought this was done.

Yes there was a substantial delay in my response.

My postings in this thread are quite time consuming to compose (more than posts elsewhere), due to the the complexity of the arguments (with posts within posts), the fact that I like to actually do research and provide references (rather than using proof-by-handwaving like some). Plus, I don't often go into the Social Issues forum, and when I do I often don't have full internet access.

Quote:

Re: The hypocrisy of Wikileaks wanting to expose secrecy in others but having a draconian non-disclosure agreement....

Quote:

Then what's the point of WikiLeaks? If the point is to "get rid of secrets" then why should it matter if WikiLeaks or some other organization releases the information?

Really? WL wants to remain in operation, so as a publisher of leaked documents, they don't want their internal operations publicized. If they were publicized, they could be compromised and crippled.

Now wait a second...

Back in post 729, your argument for the non-disclosure agreement was "So a staffer wouldn't grab a juicy leak and run with it themselves." Now you're saying that its to prevent people revealing the internals workings of Wikileaks.

Quote:

It doesn't make sense to you that a strict NDA would be required?

What secrets to their internal workings do you think need protecting? And if exposing "secrets" in the world is necessary, then wouldn't we be better off knowing the internal workings of Wikileaks so we know its actually serving the public good? (i.e. that information is being disseminated accurately and without bias.

So far, the only thing that the non-disclosure agreement would seem to protect is the fact that Assange is highly biased in favor of Russia/against the U.S.

Quote:

Quote:

(list of times that WikiLeaks risked the lives and well being of innocent people)

You were challenging a passing comment I made that Assange seems generally direct and honest.

Uhhh... no.

At that point in my post, I was not challenging whether Assange was "generally direct and honest". I was challenging a statement that you made, where you stated:No, they failed to redact the personal info of one man who had been arrested in Saudi Arabia for being gay. And two rape victims, and a bunch of other less dramatic un-redacted.

Never mind the fact that your claim of "one gay/2 rape victims" seems to contradict the actual articles I posted, your suggestion that everything else was "less dramatic un-redact" was an idiotic statement. Giving the names of American Collaborators in Afghanistan would make them a target of the Taliban. Giving credit card details and/or passport information is a great way for someone's identity to be stolen. Do those things seem "less dramatic"? If so, maybe you could post your credit card information here. I promise nobody will misuse it.

Quote:

Quote:

No in other words, he's not interfering with other states... he's just... interfering with other states.

Oh, and by the way, that's not the only thing he has done to interfere with Spain/Catalina. He's referred to Spain as a "banana monarchy", labelled the government as an "occupying power". The one tweet you mentioned is just one in a long list of things he has done to cause dissent in the area.

If you think Assange's personal opinions in his flipping tweets alters the course of nations, you think he has more power than I do.

For better or worse, Assange IS a very well-known figure with a base of hardcore supportsers, and any statements he has (whether they be verbal, tweets, or written articles) can have an impact.

Put it this way... do you think if YOU tried to walk into an embassy claiming asylum that they would open the doors for you? Do you expect there would be a parade of celebrities and officials rushing to talk to you?

Quote:

You directly and repeatedly challenged my passing comment that I thought that Assange, as a person, was generally direct and honest, as opposed to evasive and deceptive. By that, I mean that he believes in the righteousness of what he is doing and is forthcoming about it. You trying to move the goalposts...

No, I am not trying to move the goalposts.

What Assange BELIEVES is "America bad/Russia good". What he lies about (and a lie you seem to swallow) is "Oh, he's unbiased".

Quote:

...and turn it into JA actually redacting the information himself and willingly leaving personal information there is disingenuous.

You DO realize that the evidence for Assange being Anti-American is more than just his failure to properly redact data.

Just to refresh your memory: Evidence that Assange is anti-American/Pro-Russian:

- Statements by people who worked WITH WIKILEAKS who have complained about Assange's focus on the U.S.
- Assange receiving money from Russian sources
- Assange failing to publish documents (many of which were previously unpublished) that went after Russian interference in eastern europe
- Assange allowing raw material to be taken by a friend and given to Putin allies (which included the names of dissidents). Note that this isn't the same as a failure to redact
- And now, the new one (which, admittedly is still in the process of verification)... Assange working with Russians to get a puppet leader installed in the U.S.

Quote:

Quote:

Other sites do exist and do leak data.

True, they don't get anywhere near the traffic or attention WikiLeaks does, but then WikiLeaks does tend to suck all the oxygen out of the room. If WikiLeaks were to vanish, an alternative would take its place, much like Facebook supplanted Myspace.

Probably. Right now, there is only one significant publisher, Wikileaks. As I sais earlier, I had high hopes for Openleaks' model, but even Daniel D-S can't make it happen (and if anyone could, I thought it would be him).

And once again (since you seem to have ignored the issue).... how are those other sites supposed to gain significance when wikileaks is there sucking up all the attention.

Quote:

Posting random insults seems to be kind of your thing, I take it?

Just the result of looking at your posts, and the incredible amount of hand-waiving you do in support of your opinions.

Quote:

As I have commented, I think WL (or something like it) is vitally necessary. I would be perfectly happy with Openleaks or any other model that works. Right now, Wikileaks is the only significant game in town, and I want to see them survive and expand. No, I am not interested in the Julian Assange Show.

You see, here is the problem... you claim to complain about assange, but you also want to see WIKILEAKS expand. Its like saying you're against obesity but want everyone to go on the all lard-and-sugar diet.

I think we'd be much better off if Assange was crushed by an asteroid from outerspace, and another organization took Wikileaks' place... one that 1) Wasn't biased towards Russia, and 2) actually made the effort to, you know, not take actions that can get people killed by not properly redacting information.

Quote:

I have only argued here that other posters seem to let their dislike of him color their view of the overall situation.

Then you have the whole cause and effect wrong.

We aren't letting our dislike of him color our view of the situation. It is the view of the situation (the failure to properly redact data that risks people's lives and well being, the anti-American bias that FORMER MEMBERS OF WIKILEAKS HAVE STATED) that is leading to the dislike of the man.

Quote:

As I have said, I don't like him either. But from Manning to Sessions to Mueller and everywhere in between, the US has been openly gunning for Wikileaks, so Assange appears to have been more or less right all along.

Nope he hasn't been right all along.. Unless you can point to any arrest warrants, extradition requests, or the like that were issued in the past.

The only thing that MIGHT put him at risk is the Mueller investigation, but that would mean that Assange was not a passive publisher of data but an active participant in the election interference. But then, that is a more recent development.

Quote:

I don't think he is exactly anti-US;

You are welcome to think anything you want. But the evidence points in another direction.

Quote:

I think he is anti-certain powerful factions within the US. He certainly does not like the Clintons in particular...

So, because he doesn't like the Clintons, he is going to help install Trump to office, a man who (as any rational person would see) is actually going to harm women (appointing anti-abortion judges), minorities, people needing health care, etc. And if he hates "powerful factions within the U.S.", he should recognize that the Republican party is powerful too. Yet he favored the party that will harm more people.

Sounds to me like he is just anti-U.S. and doesn't care who gets hurt from his actions.

Quote:

....and the military in general.

So, he acts to get a republican president, which is going to lead to more of a military build-up (and probably more chance of war) than if Clinton got into power.

Quote:

And I agree that the timed release of emails during the election was intended to interfere with voters, which pissed me off royally, then and now. But since you want to drag this down to personal (and untrue) insults, I'll ask again: can we agree to disagree?

Can we agree that I've provided evidence to support my point of view and you've just engaged in a significant amount of proof-by-handwaving?

My claim is that there has been an ongoing investigation, as opposed to theprestige's claim that there is no US interest in him.

In case you didn't notice, an "ongoing investigation" does not necessarily mean that there were any indictments or warrants issued against him, nor does it mean he'd be under much actual risk of arrest, if his only actions were to publish information that was provided. (Courts have

Now Assange actually taking an active role (e.g. personally hacking into systems to steal information, and/or providing advise to others) does alter the narrative significantly. But then, that's not what Wikileaks was supposedly about.

Seeking political asylum was a last ditch effort, not calculated deception, IMO.

Does doing something dishonest on the spur of the moment instead of planning it in advance make it not dishonest

Quote:

His well-heeled supporters, you may note, have continued to stand beside him.

More fool them.

Quote:

Consider, please: if you actually believed that powers were 'out to get you', and you had supporters who wanted you to remain free, was it really dishonest to seek asylum?

You don't know that was his motive. From here it looks more like he was attempting to evade rape charges.

The rape investigation was real. At the time there was no request from the USA to either Sweden or the UK to extradite him. He only actually did a runner after the British courts found that he could be sent back to Sweden. Until that point, he seemed quite happy to stay in a country that had a reputation for complying with US extradition requests no matter what.

Does doing something dishonest on the spur of the moment instead of planning it in advance make it not dishonest

True, but is seeking political asylum 'dishonest'? Just assume for the sake of argument that he was a legit political refugee, as Ecuador considered him. Would someone sentenced to stoning for heresy in a theocracy be dishonest for jumping bail in order to seek asylum?

Quote:

More fool them.

What makes you sure they are dupes? You dismiss that they may have considered this possibility in advance? I surely would have, before putting up my money. His supporters seem to be standing by him. Perhaps you assume they are kind of stupid?

Quote:

You don't know that was his motive. From here it looks more like he was attempting to evade rape charges.

The rape investigation was real. At the time there was no request from the USA to either Sweden or the UK to extradite him. He only actually did a runner after the British courts found that he could be sent back to Sweden. Until that point, he seemed quite happy to stay in a country that had a reputation for complying with US extradition requests no matter what.

This has been discussed to death up thread. The women still do not consider themselves raped, at least not publicly, AFAIK. But unless you have a different angle, I don't care to repeat it all.

The women still do not consider themselves raped, at least not publicly, AFAIK.

You mean except that they hired a lawyer to have the charges looked at by sexual crimes prosecutor after the initial charges had been dropped. This would seem to be an usual action from people that don't believe a crime was committed against them.

__________________It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtahI am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

You mean except that they hired a lawyer to have the charges looked at by sexual crimes prosecutor after the initial charges had been dropped. This would seem to be an usual action from people that don't believe a crime was committed against them.

Their request was to force Assange to be tested for STDs. They have not been heard to puclicly say anything derogatory about him, and their reported social media posts and throwing parties for him do seem to indicate a lack of animosity. Not reasonable?

Their request was to force Assange to be tested for STDs. They have not been heard to puclicly say anything derogatory about him, and their reported social media posts and throwing parties for him do seem to indicate a lack of animosity. Not reasonable?

Their initial request was about forcing him to have an STD test. After the Full time Prosecutor dropped the charges against him in the first place, they could have let it lie and nothing more would have happened, the case would have been closed. The reason it was reopened is that the women hired a lawyer and requested that the charges be reviewed by what is basically the national sexual offences office.

If they didn't believe that they were assaulted, and had nothing against Assange, then why would they have done so?

__________________It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtahI am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

Their initial request was about forcing him to have an STD test. After the Full time Prosecutor dropped the charges against him in the first place, they could have let it lie and nothing more would have happened, the case would have been closed. The reason it was reopened is that the women hired a lawyer and requested that the charges be reviewed by what is basically the national sexual offences office.

If they didn't believe that they were assaulted, and had nothing against Assange, then why would they have done so?

I would assume that since the charges were dropped, they could not force the test, and so continued to use whatever remedies were available to force it. Again, their identities are known and they have nothing negative to say, AFAIK

Sometimes a question is just a question and not an opening gambit, but since you stuck your foot in it, it seems you're the one who moved the goalposts to "trying to get him" from "investigating what he's done".

Sometimes a question is just a question and not an opening gambit, but since you stuck your foot in it, it seems you're the one who moved the goalposts to "trying to get him" from "investigating what he's done".

Two different things, you know?

Sorry. Getting too defensive, my bad.

Would you think about eight years of ongoing investigation crossing administrations, seems like somewhat enthusiastic pursuit? Maybe more than a cursury look see?

And don't forget that a lot of the investigation into Assange has been about things he did after the Sweden incident.

And a lowkey review of Wikileaks' involvement in leaking state secrets is totally understandable. That makes him just as wanted as any other journalist who's ever published classified information. Not at all the same as an "enthusiastic" or "vehement" persecution of the man.

I would assume that since the charges were dropped, they could not force the test, and so continued to use whatever remedies were available to force it.

Having the charges reconsidered doesn't do that.

Quote:

Again, their identities are known and they have nothing negative to say, AFAIK

Considering the attacks they came under at the time, I am not at all surprised that they are saying nothing publicly. They have a lawyer for that sort of thing.

__________________It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtahI am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

Would you think about eight years of ongoing investigation crossing administrations, seems like somewhat enthusiastic pursuit? Maybe more than a cursury look see?

Investigations into crimes have sometimes gone on for decades, passing down from investigator to investigator, despite little progress; there's a reason they call them cold cases. Just because an investigation is open doesn't mean there's a lot going on there.

If there were an actual concerted effort by the U.S. to "get" Assange, we would have gone to the government of Ecuador (since he was being housed on their turf) to plead our case, or been more proactive in efforts to obtain him. It's not like the guy is a fugitive like bin Laden where we have to wait for word of his appearance somewhere; we know where he is and have this whole time. I think you're conflating an effort to keep an eye on a possible threat to U.S. interests with a concerted effort to actually capture him. The U.S. keeps tabs on people who it deems a possible threat; every government in the world does, really. That's just common sense. Assange has shown a willingness to endanger U.S. sources in the past, so keeping an eye on his actions is just being sensible. But to my knowledge, no investigation into him has ever come up with any real evidence to back up any sort of charge against him. Given that, it seems far more likely that we are merely keeping an eye on him to protect our own interests, nothing more. His paranoia conflates that with wanting to string him up by his own entrails, but looking at the actual evidence indicates nothing more than a simple tracking effort of a possible, not definite, threat, which any country worth its salt would tell you is de rigeur.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.